This blog addresses the fatal flaw at the core of capitalism as a system of human psycho-socio-political-economic collective self-reproduction, a flaw which ultimately renders it a self-DIS-organizing, self-destroying system -- as is becoming increasingly evident. It also details the successor system to capitalism, the new system that represents the higher, positive way forward for humanity: Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY, or EQUITISM.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Full Title:Part 2. of 4.The Heart and Soul of
Marxian Theory -- The Growth of the Social Forces of Production

Dear Readers,

This blog-entry contains the second part of my “improvement” of one more text by theE.A.g. [Equitist Advocacy group],
this one entitled “The Heart and Soul of Marxian Theory”.

I am planning to provide my
version of their text in the first two parts, and to then add two new sections, as the third and fourth parts, setting forth some of the fruits of the
latest research by the Foundation
regarding the critical, immanent ‘extention’
of the central concept to that of the ‘‘‘human-societal[self-]force
ofhuman-societal[self-]reproduction’’’,
in part via an immanent critique of the ideology-compromised science of Darwinian biology, resulting in
F.E.D.’s theory of ‘DialecticalMeta-Darwinism’ as the positive fruition of that immanent critique.

TheE.A.g. may not even have been aware of these developments in F.E.D.theory, at least not at the time when they first developed the subject text.

The Heart and
Soul of Marxian Theory --

“The Growth of the Social
Forces of Production”.

Part 2.Evidence

The following excerpts — from the published writings of
Karl Marx, as well as from his surviving writings which he left unpublished at
the time of his death — provide evidence as to his resonances with the theses
expressed in the previous part.

Marx introduces this ‘fundamentality’ of his critical concept
of the human-social ‘forces of production’ in his letter to Pavel
Vasilyevich Annenkov, dated 28
December 1846, on the eve of
the Europe-wide revolutionary upheaval of 1848:

“Needless to say, man is not free to choose his
productive forces — upon which his whole history is based — for every
productive force is an acquired force, the product of previous activity. Thus the productive forces are the result of
man’s practical energy, but that energy is in turn circumscribed by the
conditions in which man is placed by the productive forces already acquired, by
the form of society which exists before him, which he does not create, which is
the product of the preceding generation. The simple fact that every succeeding
generation finds productive forces acquired by the preceding generation and
which serve it as the raw material of further production, engenders a
relatedness in the history of man, engenders a history of mankind, which is all
the more a history of mankind as man’s productive forces, and hence his social
relations, have expanded. From this it
can only be concluded that the social history of man is never anything else
than the history of his individual development, whether he is conscious of this
or not.” [Source: Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, Collected Works (Volume 38), International Publishers (New York: 1982), pages 95-106. Quoted in: Paul Paolucci, Marx’s Scientific Dialectics,
Brill (Boston: 2007), page 79, italicsemphasis as in original].

Marx’s first published
summary of the findings of his paradigm of ‘‘‘[psycho]historical
materialism’’’, are coupled with the first published systematic rendering
of a portion of his [immanent] critique of capitalist political economy, in
the world-famous Preface to Zur
Kritik der politischen Oekonomie [A
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy], first
published in 1859:

“The general conclusion at which I arrived and which, once
reached, became the guiding principle of my studies can be summarized as
follows.”

“In the social production of
their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are
independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a
given stage in the development of their material forces of production.”

“The totality of these relations
of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real
foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which
correspond definite forms of social consciousness.”

“The mode of production of
material life conditions the general process of social, political, and
intellectual life.”

“It is not the consciousness of
men that determines their existence, but their social existence which
determines their consciousness.”

“At a certain stage of
development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with
the existing relations of production, or — this merely expresses the same thing
in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they
had operated hitherto.”

“From forms of the development
of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters.”

This opposition between the social forces of production and
the social relations of production is usually assumed to be a process of the “social
unconscious”, going on “behind the backs” of the agent
social individuals, and never explicitly represented as such privately, or
publicly, within the ideological forms of intellectual expression of this
social-revolutionary conflict.

Our hypothesis, in the section above, broaches the
possibility that this conflict, if only in the historical extremity of the
final “prehistoric” epoch of human social formation, can become a conscious
one, secretly, within the innermost deliberations of the ruling faction of the
capital-owning class-for-itself that emerges from the historical development of
the capital-relation.

We go to a key writing of
Marx, left unpublished in his lifetime, for evidence of the crucial core
of the definition of the concept he named “the social forces of production”,
a core meaning which militates against the feelings of estrangement, for
non-capitalists, that tend to associate with this phrase:

“Productive forces and social relationships — the two
different sides of the development of the social individual — appear to be, and
are, only a means, for capital, to enable it to produce from its own cramped
base. But in fact they are the material conditions that will shatter this
foundation.” [David McLellan (editor and translator), The Grundrisse – Karl Marx, Harper
& Row [NY: 1971], p. 143].

This passage from the Grundrisse
makes clear that, in Marx’s thinking, the human-social forces of
production exist as a predicate, not only of each human society as
a whole — of each historically-specific human social formation — but also,
because “the social individual” is a
“concrete universal” in Marx’s thought, as a predicate of each and every
individual human person constituent of that social formation.

“Productive force”, ‘society-productive force’, the productivity of ‘societal
self-production’, the ‘reproductivity’ of a human
society’s self-reproduction, is thus also a ‘self-power’
of that human individual [within that association] — with respect to nature,
including with respect to human nature — i.e., in the context of that human
society, and of the “self-productivity” of its “collective labor” of continual “production”
of itself as a self-evolving whole, within also its “other-determination” by
the impact upon it of the rest of the universe, the rest of Nature.

Likewise, per this passage, “social relationships”
— e.g., the dominant human-social “relationship” of production in each epoch of human [social] formation
— is a predicate of both the developing human society as a whole, and of the
developing human person as a social
individual; as a constituent thereof.

The primary historical “human-social relationships of production”,
or ‘‘‘formsof human-social intercourse’’’
[See K. Marx and F. Engels, The German Ideology],
listed in the order of their appearance/emergence
in human [pre-]history, can be named as follows:

Predation —
immediate, predatory appropriation of the raw products of
pre-human/extra-human nature [“foraging”, “scavenging”, “hunting and
gathering”, etc.] [This is the vanishing point of human social production, back into sub-human,
ecological relations; the «arché» of the human-social
relations of production.];

pre-money, barterable Commodities,
or “the commodity-relation”
[Marx], «aufheben»-subsuming
the ‘Goods-/Gifts-relation’, as well as subsuming the relation of
production preceding that relation of production;

pre-capital Money, or “the money-relation” [Marx], «aufheben»-subsuming “the commodity-relation”, as
well as all of the other preceding human-social relations of production;

Capital, or “the capital-relation” [Marx], «aufheben»-subsuming
“the money relation”, as well as all of the other preceding human-social
relations of production, e.g., as “money-capital” and as “commodity-capital”;

The development of
the human-social
forces of production is expected to continue, by Marx — and
must continue, per Marx — beyond the epoch of ‘capital-centered society’,
into the epoch of ‘“democratic-communist society”’,
i.e., the epoch of global‘political-economicdemocracy’.
The human-social forces of
production must continue to grow within the epoch of ‘“democratic-communist society”’
as an ineluctable natural condition of human social reproduction, and as
an expression of the “human essence”:

“We have seen that the capitalist
process of production is a historically determined form of the social process
of production in general.”

“The latter is as much a production process of
material conditions of human life as a process taking place under specific
historical and economic production relations, producing
and reproducing these production relations themselves,
and thereby also the bearers of this process, their material conditions of
existence and their mutual relations, i.e., their
particular socio-economic form.”

“For the aggregate of these relations,
in which the agents of this production stand with respect to Nature and to one
another, and in which they produce, is precisely society,
considered from the standpoint of its economic structure.”

“Like all its predecessors, the capitalist process
of production proceeds under definite material conditions, which are, however,
simultaneously the bearers of definite social relations
entered into by individuals in the process of reproducing their life.”

“Those conditions, like those relations,
are on the one hand prerequisites, on the other hand results and creations of
the capitalist process of production; they are produced and reproduced by it.”

“We saw also that capital — and the capitalist is
merely capital personified, and functions in the process of production solely
as the agent of capital — in its corresponding process of production, pumps a
definite quantity of surplus-labour out of the direct producers, or labourers;
capital obtains this surplus-labour without an equivalent, and in essence it
always remains forced labour — no matter how much it may seem to result from
free contractual agreement.”

“This surplus-labour appears as
surplus-value, and this surplus-value exists as a surplus-product.”

“Surplus-labour in general, as labour
performed over and above the given requirements, must always remain.”

“In the capitalist as well as in the slave system,
etc., it merely assumes an antagonistic form, and is supplemented by the
complete idleness of a stratum of society.”

“A definite quantity of surplus-labour is required as insurance against accidents, and by the necessary and progressive expansion of the process of
reproduction in keeping with the
development of the needs and the
growth of population, which is called accumulation from the viewpoint of the capitalist.”

“It is one of the civilizing aspects of capital
that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are
more advantageous to the development of the productive forces,
social relations, and the creation of the
elements for a new and higher form than under the preceding forms
of slavery, serfdom, etc.”

“Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one hand,
in which coercion and monopolization of social development
(including its material and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society
at the expense of the other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates the
material means and the embryonic conditions, making it possible for a higher
form of society to combine this surplus-labour with a greater reduction
of time devoted to material labour in general.”

“For, depending on the development of labour
productivity, surplus-labour may be large in a small total
working-day, and relatively small in a large total working-day.”

“If the necessary labour-time= 3 and the surplus-labour= 3, then the total working-day = 6 and the rate of surplus-labour= 100%.”

“If the necessary labour=
9 and the surplus-labour= 3, then the total working-day = 12 and the rate of surplus-labour=33 1/3%.”

“In that case, it depends upon the labour
productivity how much use-value shall be produced in a
definite time, hence also in a definite surplus labour-time.”

“The actual wealth of society, and the possibility of constantly expanding its reproduction
process, therefore, do not depend upon the
duration of surplus-labour, but upon its productivity and the more or less copious conditions of production under
which it is performed.”

“In fact, the realm of freedom
actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane
considerations ceases; thus, in the very nature of things, it lies beyond the
sphere of actual material production.”

“Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to
satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must
civilized man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all
possible modes of production.”

“With his development this realm of
physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the
same time, the forces of production which satisfy these
wants also increase.”

“Freedom in this field can only consist is socialized man, the
associated producers, rationally
regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common
control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and
achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most
favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.”

“But it nonetheless still
remains a realm of necessity.”

“Beyond it begins that development of human energy
which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which,
however, can blossom forth only with this realm
of necessity as its basis.”

Marx does not explicitly mention, here, another aspect of
this continuing necessity of the growth of the social
forces of production -- a necessity which continues both before, and during,
and also after the capitalist epoch, i.e., including continuing
into and throughout the human history proper which is predicted
to succeed that “human prehistory” [Marx] which only ends
with the end of global capitalism.

That aspect is this:every major stage in the ‘“pre-historical” development, and also in Marx’s
predicted ‘post-pre-historical’ development, of the social forces of
production, defines a certain, historically-specific
aspect of ‘extra-human Nature’ as its necessary, grounding
resource base, an aspect of -- local, planetary -- Nature which is relatively
finite, and which can be depleted and, finally, exhausted -- used up --
as a result of the continued appropriation of that “natural resource” by human
social [re-]production, e.g., fossil fuels resources, for the current, ‘molecular
power’, stage of the development of the social forces of production
under capitalism.

If human social reproduction is to
continue, then, before that
depletion/conversion/accumulation process is completed, human “universal labor”
[Marx] must discover / invent, and implement, a new, next
major technology, basing a new major, higher stage in the historic qualitative,
ontological development and quantitative growth of the human social forces of
production, e.g., the predicted “nuclear fusion power” «species»
of the «genos» of ‘“[primarily-protonic, thus sub-]atomic
power”’.

Continued human social reproduction
thus requires continued ‘qualo-quantitative’ expansion
of human “universal labor” [Marx], and the timely implementation
of the fruits of that “universal labor” -- which induces a
‘qualo-quantitatively’ expanded further growth of the human social forces of
production -- to surmount the ‘depletion-depreciation’ of each stage in the
qualitative, ontological development/growth of the social forces of production,
due to the ‘depletion-depreciation’ of that aspect of ‘extra-human
Nature’ which that stage of the growth of the social productive forces defines
as its core “natural resource”.

That is, the necessity of the
development of the human-social forces of production
for continued human social reproduction does not endwith the end of
capitalist society:

“There appears here the universalizing
tendency of capital, which distinguishes it from all previous stages of
production.”

“Although limited by its very nature, it strives
towards the universal development of the
forces of production, and thus becomes the
presupposition of a new mode of production,
which is founded not on the development of
the forces of production for the purpose of reproducing or at most
expanding a given condition, but where the free, unobstructed, progressive, and universal development of the
forces of production is itself the presupposition of
society and hence of its reproduction. ...”

“The barrier to capital is that this entire
development proceeds in a contradictory way, and that the working-out of the
productive forces, of general wealth, etc., knowledge,
etc., appears in such a way that the working individual alienates himself [sich entäussert]; relates to the conditions brought out
of him by his labour as those not of his own but of an alien wealth and of his
own poverty.”

“But this antithetical form is itself fleeting,
and produces the real conditions of its own suspension.”

“The result is: the tendentially and potentially general
development of the forces of production — of wealth as
such — as a basis; likewise, the
universality of intercourse, hence the world market as
basis.”

“The basis as the possibility of the
universal development of the individual, and the real
development of the individuals from this basis as a constant
suspension of its barrier, which is recognized as a barrier, not taken for a
sacred limit.”

“Not an ideal or imagined universality
of the individual, but the universality of
his real and ideal relations.”

“Hence also the grasping of his own
history as a process, and the recognition of nature
(equally present as power over nature) as his real body.”

“The process of development itself posited and
known as the presupposition of the same.”

“For this, however, necessary above all that the
full development of the forces of production
has become the condition of production;
and not that specific conditions of production are posited as a limit to the development of the productive forces.”[Karl Marx, Grundrisse:
Foundations of the Critique of
Political Economy, Martin Nicolaus [translator], Penguin [New York: 1973], pp. 540-542, bold,
italics, underline, and color
emphasis added].

“Democratic-communist society”
is, precisely, the society of the uninterrupted development of the human-social
forces of self-expanding human-societal self-reproduction, which includes the
reproduction of the rest of nature as the real body of humanity.

Neither does the fact, and
the necessity, of the development of the human-social forces of production
— as inseparable from the continued self-reproduction of human society,
and as the core of the Marxian explanation of human-social
evolution/revolution — beginwith capitalist
society:

“This tendency [Ed.:toward the universal development of the
human-social forces of production] — which capital
possesses, but which at the same time, since capital is a limited form of
production, contradicts it and hence drives it towards dissolution —
distinguishes capital from all earlier modes of production, and at the same
time contains this element, that capital is posited as a mere point of
transition.”

“All previous forms of society — or, what is the
same, of the forces of social production — foundered on
the development of wealth.”

“Those thinkers of antiquity who were possessed of
consciousness therefore directly denounced wealth as the dissolution of the
community.”

“The feudal system, for its part, foundered on
urban industry, trade, modern agriculture (even as a result of individual
inventions like gunpowder and the printing press).”

“With the development of wealth
— and hence also new powers and expanded
intercourse on the part of individuals —
the economic conditions on which the community rested were dissolved, along
with the political relations of the various constituents of the community which
corresponded to those conditions: religion,
in which it was viewed in idealized form (and both [Ed.:religion and political relations] rested in
turn on a given relation to nature, into which all
productive force resolves itself); the character, outlook etc. of
individuals.”

“The development of science
alone — i.e. the mostsolidform of wealth,
both its product and its producer — was sufficient to dissolve these
communities.”

“But the development of science,
this ideal and at the same time practical wealth, is only one aspect, one form
in which the development of the human productive forces, i.e., of wealth, appears.”

“Considered ideally, the dissolution of a
given form of consciousness sufficed to kill a whole
epoch.”

“In reality, this barrier to
consciousness corresponds to a definite degree of development
of the forces of material production and hence
of wealth.”

“True, there was not only a development on
the old basis, but also a development of
this basis itself.”

“The highest development of this basis
itself (the flower into which it transforms itself; but it is also this
basis, this plant as flower; hence wilting after the
flowering and as consequence of the flowering) is the point at which it is
itself worked out, developed, into the form in which it is compatible with the highest
development of the forces of production, hence
also the richest development of the individuals.”

“As soon as this point is reached, the further
development appears as decay, and the new development begins from a new basis.”[Karl Marx, Grundrisse:
Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, pp. 540-541, bold,
italics, underline, and color
emphasis added].

More specifically, Marx applies his concept of the
development of the human-social forces of human-societal self-re-production to
the [meta-]evolution of pre-slavery and pre-serfdom social formations as well,
as follows:

“The fundamental condition of property
based on tribalism ... is to be a member of the tribe.”

“Consequently a tribe conquered and subjugated by
another becomes propertyless and part of the inorganic conditions
of the conquering tribe’s reproduction, which that community regards as its
own.”

“Slavery and serfdom are therefore simply further
developments of property based on tribalism.”

“But this also clearly means that these conditions
change.”

“What makes a region of the earth into a
hunting-ground, is being hunted over by tribes; what turns the soil into a
prolongation of the body of the individual is agriculture.”

“Once the city of Rome had been built and
its surrounding land cultivated by its citizens, the conditions
of the community were different from what they had been before.”

“The object of all of these communities is
preservation, i.e. the production of the individuals which constitute them
as proprietors, i.e. in the same objective mode of existence, which also forms
the relationship of the members to each other, and therefore forms the
community itself.”

“But this reproduction is
at the same time necessarily newproduction and the destruction
of the old form.
...”

“The act of reproduction itself changes not
only the objective conditions — e.g. transforming village into town, the wilderness into agricultural clearings, etc. — but the producers change with it, by the emergence of new qualities, by transforming and developing themselves
in production,
forming new powers and new conceptions, new modes of intercourse, new needs, and new speech

...”.

“The
community itself appears as the first great force
of production....”

“In the last instance the community and the
property resting upon it can be reduced to a specific stage in the
development of the forces of production of the labouring subjects
— to which correspond specific relations of these
subjects with each other and with nature.”

“Up to a certain point, reproduction. Thereafter, it turns into dissolution. ...”

“These forms are of course more or less naturally
evolved, but at the same time also the results of a historic process.”

“The evolution of the forces of
production dissolves them,
and their dissolution is itself an evolution of the human forces of production.”[Karl Marx, Grundrisse:
Pre-Capitalist
Economic Formations, International Publishers [New York: 1965], pp. 92-95, bold,
italics, underline, and color
emphasis added].

Conclusion

The growth of the human-social "forces
of production" is the very '''heart
and soul''' of Marxian theory; of its explanation of the
causation of human-social evolution, and of human-social revolution, as also of
Marx's root definition of the very essence of "[democratic] communist
society".

Those who deny this, are — whatever else they may or may
not be — quite simply notMarxians.

Friday, May 17, 2013

Full Title:Part1. of 4.The Heart and Soul of
Marxian Theory -- The Growth of the Social Forces of Production.

Dear Readers,

This blog-entry contains my “improvement” of one more text
by theE.A.g. [Equitist Advocacy
group], this one entitled “The Heart and Soul of
Marxian Theory”.

I plan to provide my
version of their text in the first two parts, and to then add two new sections, as a third and fourth part, setting forth some of the fruits of the
latest research by the Foundation
regarding the critical, immanent ‘extention’
of the central concept to that of the ‘‘‘human-societal[self-]force
ofhuman-societal[self-]reproduction’’’,
in part via an immanent critique of the ideology-compromised science of Darwinian biology, resulting in
F.E.D.’s theory of ‘Dialectical Meta-Darwinism’ as a positive fruition of that immanent critique.

The Heart and
Soul of Marxian Theory --

“The Growth of the Social
Forces of Production”.

Part1.:Hypothesis.

Abstract

This exegetical essay puts forward the thesis that the growth of the“human-socialforces of production”
is the ‘‘‘heart and soul’’’
of the Marxian theory of the
causation of human-social evolution,
of human-social revolution, and of the
“lawful” historical emergence of ‘democratic communism’, i.e., of ‘Marxian Democracy’.

That is, this essay holds that, per Marx, the
human-society self-induced growth of the “human-socialforces of production” is the core cause of
the historically observed — as of the predicted future — changes in the “human-socialrelations of production”,
the human-social relations which mediate the self-reproduction, and the
self-transformation, of human societies.

These include, especially, in order of their historical
progression, “The Commodity-Relation” [Marx], “TheMoney-Relation” [Marx], and “The Capital-Relation”
[Marx], and their predicted subsumption by the higher “socialrelation of production”
of “The Associated Producers”
[Marx].

The latter has clarified and concretized by Karl Seldon,
based upon Marx’s remarks regarding the connexion of joint-stock company
shareholder democracy to ‘democratic
communism’, in the concept of ‘The Generalized Equity-Relation’.

This thesis is supported, in this essay, by extensive evidence from the
published writings of Karl Marx, as well as from surviving writings by Marx
left unpublished during his lifetime.

Hypothesis

“The growth
of the social forces of production” is the
‘‘‘heart and soul’’’
of the Marxian theory of the
causation of human-social evolution,
of human-social revolution, and of the
“lawful” historical emergence of ‘democratic communism’, i.e., of ‘Marxian Democracy’.

It is the core of Marx’s explanation of the continual,
cumulative changes within each historically-observed
system of human social relations [of the transitory
self-reproduction of that system of social relations of social reproduction].

It is also the core of Marx’s explanation of the
historically-observed changes that constitute the transition
from each predecessor system of human social relations to its successor
system of human social relations, characterized by a partial
conservation of the predecessor ontology of social relations, as
well as by an irruption of new, unprecedented social-relations ontology.

In Marxian theory, the growth of thehuman-social forces of production is also theprimaryprojectofhumanliberation.

Per Marx, it is already so within that human pre-history,
a “prehistory” which ends with the end of the predominance of the
“capital-relation”" as all-subsuming social relation of production,
and it is so also, and even more so, within the
predicted future, next epoch, that of the social relation of production of the
freely and democratically “associated producers”, which Marx also calls “[democratic]
communist society” [as opposed to capitalist society in general, and to the
final, descendant-phase «species»
of the «genos»
of capitalist society -- totalitarian, humanocidal state-capitalism].

However, this liberatory project, per Marx, cannot be a conscious,
deliberate collective human project within the entire span of “human
prehistory” — a prehistory which, per Marx, only ends with the emergence of
humanity from its capital-value-form.

Before that emergence, this project of human liberation is
part of [Hegel] “the cunning” of history; of the human species’ collective, or
social, unconscious mind.

Specifically, under the rule of the capital-value-form,
this project is not pursued, collectively, consciously as such, but only
indirectly, in an ulterior manner, and under goals as prescribed by other,
misleading, “ideological” forms of human consciousness.

This project is pursued, essentially, only in the form of
the pursuit of transitory “super-profit” opportunities by the personifications
of “the capital-relation”, via their effort to increase the productivity
of their wage-labor inputs so as to reduce the unit cost of their commodity
output, and, thereby, to (1)
undercut their competitors’ pricing, on equivalent output, at the same
rate of profit, or (2)
to meet their competitors’ prices, at a higher rate of
profit, or (3) some
intermediate combination of the two forgoing strategy-extremes.

Upon critical, deeper analysis, this is revealed, by Marx,
to be the de facto pursuit of rising rates of “relative
surplus-value”, though this is not perceived
as such in the typical consciousness of the agents/personifications of “the capital-relation”.

For individuals outside the class of
capital-personification, e.g., for wagéd and salaried workers, the development
of what they tend, in the present-day ideological context, to “hear” from the
phrase “the productive forces” — namely, so-called “technology” — and the
choice of “technology”, appear to be an alien affair, an affair of capital and
its engineering, etc., employees, from which the wage-working population is
excluded.

Such “technology” may even appear, in the eyes of
superficial, ‘impressionistic empiricists’, in an illusory, ‘real subjects/real
objects’-inverted manner, as an autonomous development, outside of any
human-social intension or control: “technology”
as the [pseudo-]subject, or [pseudo-]agent, of human history.

The associated feeling of estrangement with respect to
such “technology” on the part of workers is a ‘psycho-ideological vulnerability’
produced in them by their very ‘capital-relation’ experience itself.

That feeling can be exploited in the
psychological/ideological class-warfare operations of ‘The Anti-Marxian
Marxians’.

They are the capitalist ruling class’s ruling faction, in the
sub-epoch of the epoch of capital that we call ‘thedescendant phaseof the capitalist system’.

This ruling faction is hell-bent on “saving itself” from
Marx’s predicted outcome of the growth of the human-society-productive forces
under “the capital-relation” — on saving its power to despotically rule over the
rest of global society.

It plans to do so by engineering, first, a termination,
and, thereafter, a reversal, of the historical “growth of the productive forces”,
together with all of the catastrophic, ‘multi-genocidal’, tendentially ‘‘‘humanocidal’’’
contraction of global human-societal self-reproduction that such a reversal of
the growth of the productive forces entails.

That feeling of estrangement on the part of workers is
also, in part, well-founded.

It is well-founded, but not as a
‘‘‘Neo-Luddite’’’ urge to the abstract
negation of “technology” as “technology” is shaped and deformed by
the imperatives of “the capital-relation” and the power-and
profit-pursuing ruling-class “capital-praxis”.

It is well-founded as an urge to the immanent, «aufheben», dialecticalnegation
of that “technology”: the creation of a
technological social infrastructure fit for use by “the associated producers”
[Marx], in their expanded reproduction of an actualized human[e] society,
thereby ending human pre-history, and beginning the
actual[ized] history of humanity assuch.

Within “the capital-relation”, within the epoch of the
real domination of the human [re-]production-process by capital, “technology”
develops and accumulates physically as “fixed capital” — as an objectification
and materialization of THE CAPITAL-RELATION itself: “technology as capital”; “capital as
a technology”.

The “fixed capital” component of “constant capital” [Marx]
develops as an instrument for the subjugation of workers, reduced to “variable
capital” [Marx], and with an imperative toward the production of ever
escalating and ever accumulating “pollution”, etc., “externalities”, against
which “the capital relation” — because of the inherent failure of “market-forces”
to effectively regulate “externalities”, a failure inherent in “the capital-relation”
— provides no immanent protection.

This “technology” therefore develops in a manner which is
disfigured, deformed, and perverted with respect to the designs of a “democratic-communist”,
e.g., of an actually humanist, actually human[e] Political-ECONOMICDEMOCRACY,
which means a human polity that consciously aims at the production of SOCIAL use-value /
SOCIAL negentropy.

Only within an emergent post-capitalist,
post-pre-historic, ‘democratic-communist society’ — i.e., only within the
social relations of society self-re-production of a Political-ECONOMICDEMOCRACY — can the
expansion of humanity's self-expansive, self-creative, self-reproductive powers
become a conscious project of humanity — a matter of democratic
deliberation and of collective-conscious design.